Batch Delete Purchase Options

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly signals a destructive operation with 'Delete' and adds a useful constraint that it is disabled in read-only mode. However, it does not disclose whether deletion is reversible, whether it affects existing purchases, or how partial failures in the batch are handled.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences front-load the core purpose and scope, then add the read-only restriction without filler. Every sentence contributes essential selection and invocation context.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description specifies purpose, resource scope, batching behavior, and the read-only restriction, while the schema covers all parameter semantics and an output schema exists. It only omits edge-case behavior such as partial batch failures, but an agent has enough to select and invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema fully documents all three parameters (package_name, product_id, requests) with descriptions, including the contents of each request body, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb, 'Delete', and identifies the resource ('purchase options') and scope ('from a one-time product') with batching ('multiple ... in a single operation'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like batch_delete_purchase_option_offers and batch_delete_one_time_products, which target different resources.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The scope is clear enough that an agent can infer when to use this tool: deleting multiple purchase options from a one-time product. However, the description does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as when deleting purchase option offers instead, so the guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.